61. On June 4, 2004, the National Police Court of Justice decided the request for release filed by Mr. Villarroel Merino on June 4, 2004, and consequently, in application of article 24.8 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, ordered his immediate release.74 62. On October 8, 2004, the police prosecutor issued a new final report in which he considered that there was insufficient evidence to charge the individuals under investigation, including the presumed victims: It has been shown that the report […] issued by the Comptroller General’s Office is not founded on the reality because, based on the evidence provided, it has been proved that a series of errors were committed when issuing that report. […] There is no evidence that their actions have prejudiced the Police Institution […] or that they have committed any offense.75 63. On January 10, 2005, the National Police Court of Justice issued a judgment convicting Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez and Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor as perpetrators of the offense of misappropriation of funds (supra para. 36), and sentencing them to three years of ordinary imprisonment which, due to extenuating circumstances was modified to one year’s medium-term imprisonment. In addition, the NPCJ convicted Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino as an accomplice to the same offense while acquitting Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz and Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán.76 64. On June 10, 2005, the President of the Republic at the time issued Executive Decree No. 227 appointing the new members of the NPCJ because the previous members had completed their term of office.77 65. On September 19, 2005, as a result of “the appeals filed [against the judgment of January 10, 2005,] by the defendants, Senior General (sp) Jorge Villarroel Merino, Police Lieutenant Colonel Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánche[z], Staff Police Colonel Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor and a Police Colonel,”78 the NPCJ, with its new composition, revoked the guilty verdict, exonerated all those who had been prosecuted including the presumed victims, and ordered the release of those who were detained. The NPCJ indicated that “there is no evidence, in particular convincing evidence as the law requires, of the defendants’ guilt.”79 D. Claims for compensation 66. On March 24, 2005, Mr. Ascázubi Albán filed a claim against the State for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage before the National Police Court of Justice owing to the flawed administration of justice by the president of the National Police Court of Justice and the plenary of the Court, based on article 59 of the codification of the Code of Civil Procedure. 80 He also filed another claim for compensation before the Thirteenth Civil Court of Pichincha81 and, on September Cf. Request for the release of Mr. Villarroel Merino addressed to the National Court of Justice of the National Police, Case 36-PCJP-2002 on June 3, 2004 (evidence file, f. 3527), and Constitutional order for the release of Mr. Villarroel Merino, of June 4, 2004 (evidence file, f. 3529). 74 75 Report of the prosecutor of the National Police Court of Justice of October 8, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 6 to 40) 76 Cf. Judgment of the National Police Court of Justice of January 10, 2005 (evidence file, fs. 2567 to 2600). 77 Executive Decree No. 227 of June 10, 2005 (evidence file, fs. 2695 and 2696). It should be noted that, in this judgment, those persons who are not on record as having intervened in the processing of the case in the international sphere before the Inter-American Commission or the Inter-American Court are indicated by their initials. 78 79 Cf. Judgment of the National Police Court of Justice of September 19, 2005 (evidence file, fs. 2700 to 2767). Cf. Claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage before the National Police Court of Justice filed on March 24, 2005 (evidence file, fs. 4543 to 4547). 80 This Court points out that the evidence file does not contain the brief with the claim for compensation filed before the Thirteenth Civil Court of Pichincha; however, the file does include several decisions of the Thirteenth Civil Court of 81 18